New Jersey's state Senate passes gay marriage bill, Christie promises veto Read more

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Think for myself, Feb 14, 2012.

  1. Think for myself

    Think for myself Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    65,277
    Likes Received:
    4,596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interesting.

    So is Christie going to legislate according to his personal beliefs? Veto a law because of what his god tells him?

    Or is he going to allow the law to go forward through the legislative process?

    Seems to me it is only a matter of time before these laws work their way through the court system and it is determined that gay marriage is indeed constitutional.

    there was a recent argument regarding the will of the people. Now that in New Jersey the will of the people is in favor of the constitutional side of things, will Christie do the right thing or not?

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ass-gay-marriage-bill-christie-promises-veto/

    n a move that supporters called a civil rights milestone, New Jersey's state Senate on Monday passed a bill to recognize same-sex marriages, marking the first time state lawmakers officially endorsed the idea -- despite the promise of a veto by Gov. Chris Christie.

    Monday's vote was 24-16 in favor of the bill, a major swing from January 2010, when the Senate rejected it 20-14.

    "It means the world isn't changing, it means the world has already changed," Steven Goldstein, chairman of the gay rights group Garden State Equality said after the vote. "So wake up and smell the equality."

    Before the vote, Marsha Shapiro squeezed the hand of her longtime partner Louise Walpin, and reflected on how a body that rejected gay marriage two years ago was about to change its stance. "The pride will overpower the sorrow," she said.

    But opponents say it's "an exercise in futility" even if the Assembly passes the bill Thursday as expected, given Christie's veto vow.

    Len Deo, president of New Jersey Family Policy Council, called the vote "something we have to go through" and said it would be made moot with a veto.

    While New Jersey differs from most states in that it has no law or state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, neither its court nor lawmakers have allowed gay nuptials. Seven states and Washington, D.C., allow gay marriage. Washington state joined the list Monday when Gov. Christine Gregoire signed a same-sex marriage law.

    In 2006, the New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled that the state had to give the legal protections of marriage to committed gay and lesbian couples, but that it need not call those protections marriage.

    Lawmakers responded by creating civil unions rather than marriage.

    Gay rights advocates say civil unions have not provided true equality. They complain that they set up a separate and inherently unequal classification for gays -- something social conservatives dispute.

    Seven gay couples, along with several of their children, filed a lawsuit last year to try to get the court to order gay nuptials be allowed.

    In the meantime, Democratic leaders in the Legislature are trying to do the same thing by passing a law.

    When the Senate last voted on gay marriage two years ago, just before Gov. Jon Corzine, a Democrat who supported the measure, left office, several last-minute defections killed the bill. With the arrival of Republican Gov. Chris Christie, who spoke against gay marriage when asked about it during his campaign, advocates' hopes dimmed.

    But the bill returned this year after Senate President Stephen Sweeney, a Democrat from Deptford, declared that it was a mistake for him to abstain on the 2010 bill. He vowed to make legalizing gay marriage a priority this year.

    Christie last month said he'd veto the legislation if it passed. Christie said that such a fundamental change should be up to a vote of the people, and he has called for a referendum on the issue.

    Democratic leaders say they will not allow a vote, arguing that a majority of the people should not be entrusted with deciding whether to protect a minority.

    Instead, gay-rights supporters are hopeful that they can get enough lawmakers on their side to override Christie's expected veto.

    It would take two-thirds of both chambers of the Legislature and would have to happen by the time the current legislative session ends in January 2014.

    Sweeney said he knows which senators he'll try to persuade but won't name them publicly.

    Sen. Raymond Lesniak, a Democrat from Elizabeth, said that if all lawmakers voted their conscience and didn't cave to political pressure, there would be enough Senate votes now to override a veto. And he said that some lawmakers could switch positions, partly because of the influence of gay friends or family. "You never know who's going to forward -- a daughter, a son, a neighbor of significant meaning of a senator or assemblyperson -- and change a mind," he said.

    Two Democrats voted no and two Republicans voted yes in what was otherwise a party-line vote.

    "It is my opinion that our republic was established to guarantee liberty to all people," said Jennifer Beck, a Republican from Red Bank who voted yes. "It is our role to protect all of the people who live in our state."

    Sen. Gerald Cardinale, a Republican from Demarest, was the only senator to speak against the bill, saying allowing gays to marry goes against nature and history. "This bill simply panders to well-financed pressure groups and is not in the public interest," he said.
     
  2. paco

    paco New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    18,293
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Since marriage is a religious institution to begin with, why the hell not?
     
  3. The Mello Guy

    The Mello Guy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Messages:
    109,657
    Likes Received:
    37,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    what religion is this?

    [​IMG]
     
    krunkskimo and (deleted member) like this.
  4. youenjoyme420

    youenjoyme420 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,955
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No it isn't. My parents are married. They're both atheists.
     
  5. hopeless_in_2012

    hopeless_in_2012 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,193
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Marriage is not a religious institution.
     
  6. Wildjoker5

    Wildjoker5 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    14,237
    Likes Received:
    4,758
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, when the marriages were performed strictly by the church without government approval, they were. When all they meant was a public announcement of devotion to one person in front of God they where. Now they are a way to cut taxes and raise funds for the state.

    Chisty is showing his social progressivism now.
     
  7. paco

    paco New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    18,293
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would agree if the majority of Americans were married before a judge. However, that is not the case. Most people are married by a priest.
     
  8. drpepper

    drpepper New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,979
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I guess he doesn't like his job. One termer.
     
  9. Badmutha

    Badmutha New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    5,463
    Likes Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Funny how Liberals constantly bloviate over "Seperation of Church and State".......

    ....when it suits them.
    .
    .
    .
    .
     
  10. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    it's actually not a religious institution. it is in reality, a legal institution.
     
  11. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    having no relevance to the law. marriage is a legal institution, not a religious one.
     
  12. Wildjoker5

    Wildjoker5 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    14,237
    Likes Received:
    4,758
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It started as a religious institution. Now cause of the tax code and revenue generation for the state, it has become a legal institution.
     
  13. Serfin' USA

    Serfin' USA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    24,183
    Likes Received:
    551
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's a shame that Christie would go the route of a veto when he's normally a more rational libertarian-leaning Republican.
     
  14. Perriquine

    Perriquine On hiatus Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,587
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    This argument that marriage is a religious institution is easily defeated if we but consider the fact that marriage has a longstanding history as a contractual and legal institution.

    For example, my great-great-great-grandparents were married in the 1840s in Ohio by a Justice of the Peace, not by a church.

    How much further back do you want to turn the clock?
     
  15. Wildjoker5

    Wildjoker5 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    14,237
    Likes Received:
    4,758
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So blacks and slaves and interracial couples were married under the law too? Oh, thats right, it wasn't legal and they got "married" through the church or other ritualistic ceremony. Marriage is a 2 person commitment to each other that has been taken over by the government and made into a 3 party contract.

    Marriage has also been around a lot longer than this government has been together.
     
  16. Consmike

    Consmike New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    45,042
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Christie can veto it because...well it is within his power to do so.
     
  17. Think for myself

    Think for myself Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    65,277
    Likes Received:
    4,596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Indeed it is.

    But was he elected to express his individual religious beliefs or to represent the people of New Jersey?
     
  18. Serfin' USA

    Serfin' USA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    24,183
    Likes Received:
    551
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Marriage definitely has been around a long time, but it's funny how Christians complain so much about redefining marriage when the Old Testament had various "definitions" of its own.

    Things like polygamy are found in the Old Testament, and the modern concept of marrying for love is relatively young.

    For most of human history, marriages were arranged and served a mostly economic/political purpose.
     
  19. Perriquine

    Perriquine On hiatus Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,587
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The fact that certain parties were discriminated against with regard to the laws governing marriage doesn't render those laws or the legal institution of marriage non-existent.

    Marriage is not exclusively a religious institution. That marriage may have legal, social, and/or religious connotations is not really disputable.

    I will agree that marriage is also not exclusively a legal institution, while pointing out that the topic at hand IS marriage as a legal institution.
    Claiming that it's a religious institution is an attempt to derail discussion of the actual topic. I will take the admission of government's involvement as a concession that marriage as a legal institution exists.
     
  20. paco

    paco New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    18,293
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So if our government were to collapse for some ungodly reason, would all marriages in this country be suddenly null and void? Thank you and good night.
     
  21. Consmike

    Consmike New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    45,042
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    0
    He was elected to be governor, of which he can veto legislation.

    If I may pose a similar question to you.

    Were you asking the same questions with the appeals court that overruled proposition 8, turning over the vote of actual citizens of CA?
     
  22. Consmike

    Consmike New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    45,042
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I say we keep marriage out of the government all together.
     
  23. Perriquine

    Perriquine On hiatus Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,587
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I say that anyone is entitled to think that, but in terms of practical reality it's unlikely to happen. Funny, I don't see anyone actually organizing an effort to remove marriage from the grasp of government, for all the opining in that direction.
     
  24. Think for myself

    Think for myself Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    65,277
    Likes Received:
    4,596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I never said he lacked the capabilities, but as this bill has worked it's way through the legislature, and a majority of New Jersey-wegians, or whatever you folks call yourselves, are for it then why would he veto it?

    Because the law banning it seems to be unconstitutional and discriminatory. Such laws are overturned.
     
  25. Consmike

    Consmike New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    45,042
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No one today, especially the left wants to remove the government from anything...instead they put the government into everything.

    Its surprising to me that instead of coming up for solutions to things such as healthcare or marriage etc, on their own, people have to always run to the government.
     

Share This Page